The Wage Gap and the Presidential Campaign

On
average, women earn 77 cents for every dollar earned by men.As the article explains, this gap persists
despite the rise in women as a segment of the American work force, and women’s
“dominance in both the undergraduate and graduate degree arena.”According to the article, if we keep the
current pace of narrowing the wage gap, it will be closed by 2056.That is not an encouraging pace.2056 is around the time my young daughters
are likely to retire.

The
election is mercifully over, but during the campaign President Obama tried to
appeal to women on the wage gap issue.He often touted his support of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of
2009.He also frequently noted that the
continuing wage gap was not merely a women’s
issue, but was a family issue since
many families are now supported in whole or in large part by female
breadwinners.

I
appreciate the president’s support of that legislation and he made a good point
about the impact of the wage gap on families.However, I was dismayed because when he spoke of these issues on the
campaign trail, President Obama frankly seemed to think this was breaking
news.He also seemed to not be terribly
savvy about structural issues leading to the wage gap.Perhaps I am wrong, but this is the
impression I got when I listened to the president speak.

The Lilly
Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 was the congressional reaction to an egregious
Supreme Court opinion in 2007 that prevented a woman named Lilly Ledbetter from
seeking redress from her employer after decades of covert sexist pay
discrimination.The legislation simply
made a change to the statute of limitations that had barred Ms. Ledbetter’s
case. Form had triumphed over substance
in Ms. Ledbetter’s case, so Congress made a small tweak to correct one
procedural hurdle that had doomed her case. The 180 day statute of limitations for an
equal-pay lawsuit is now reset with each new paycheck impacted by the gender
based discrimination.The result is that
there is a longer timeframe to bring suit.

Certainly,
I agree with this legislation, but it is no panacea to workplace gender
discrimination or the persistent wage gap.It is a mere band-aid on a much deeper wound.Women still face all kinds of hurdles in even
discovering such pay discrimination or bringing suit.Indeed, what a world that such lawsuits are
even necessary to right discriminatory practices.I appreciate President Obama’s support of the
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, but that is not even the tip of the
iceberg when it comes to wage gap issues.

I was
particularly disappointed with my perception of President Obama’s attitude on
this issue due to his own life experiences.He of all people should be more sensitive and knowledgeable about the
wage gap and issues impacting women in the work place.As a child, Mr. Obama was raised and
supported financially primarily by two women who balanced paid work and raising
children:his mother and his
grandmother.As an adult, by his own account
in his memoir The Audacity of Hope,
his brilliant wife was the primary breadwinner for most of their marriage
to-date.Michelle Obama supported the
family as an incredibly successful lawyer and corporate executive.Moreover, again according to Mr. Obama’s own
memoir, Mrs. Obama brought home the proverbial bacon while she was also
shouldering most of the caregiving responsibilities for their young children.As Mr. Obama admits in Audacity of Hope,when his
daughters were young, he participated in parenting only when it suited his schedule
as he dabbled in politics and worked a bit as an adjunct professor.Not until he became a national political
star--and his book sales rose--did Mr. Obama significantly contribute to his
family’s finances.

Of all
people, our current president should be more evolved on the wage gap
issue.Throughout his life, he has been
supported financially by women who were juggling family responsibilities and
paid employment.Further, both his
children are female.This issue is one
that his own daughters are likely to face as adults.

By
contrast, I was actually pleasantly surprised by Governor Romney’s approach to
this same issue.

During the
campaign, there was a lot of hoopla over his “binders full of women”
comment.Frankly, I thought that was
silly and a colossal waste of time.Perhaps
“binders full of women” was an odd word choice.But that happens when human beings speak spontaneously and don’t have
prepared statements to follow.We
Americans whine that politicians rarely speak candidly or stray from tightly scripted
stump speeches.But the circus over
Governor Romney’s “binders” comment is what happens when politicians speak in
an unscripted fashion.They get
ridiculed if their wording is not perfect or even a bit goofy.People get caught up myopically focusing on
wording and ignore substance.And we
wonder why politicians don’t focus on substance in their campaigns.

Beyond the
odd word choice, some also panned Governor Romney that he needed “binders” to
be prepared for him and did not have a ready supply of female candidates in his
social or professional circles.Again,
that is ridiculous.There is a
noticeable dearth of women in leadership positions that might be a logical
stepping stone for serving in a governor’s administration.I myself am a professional woman, and I know
a lot of talented professional women.But if I were on my own governor’s staff and looking to add women to the
administration, I certainly wouldn’t have a ready list of candidates I could
just whip out.It is nuts to expect
Governor Romney to have had such a list in his back pocket.

Bravo that
Governor Romney did something to increase the number of women in his
administration and to get a broader cross-section of perspectives amongst his
advisors.Binders of resumes seem to me
to be a rational way to go about such a hiring decision.I’ve participated in hiring decisions at
different organizations.Putting resumes
and other application materials in binders, folders or the electronic
equivalent is an acceptable, routine approach.

Beyond the
asinine focus on the “binders of women” comment, I did not hear many others
pick up on the substance of Governor Romney’s answer to that one town hall
participant’s question.He acknowledged
the need for women to have flexibility to meet demands of both their paid work
and their family responsibilities.I
thought this demonstrated a lot of sensitivity and savvy on Governor Romney’s
part.Yet, that part of his answer got
ignored by most.

Those in
the media who did pay attention to it often panned it.The article below from CNN.com is typical.

Only at
the very end of the article does it reference Governor Romney’s attention to
workplace flexibility.In that context,
the article states “And though Romney sought to highlight his support of
flexible work schedules for women, his reference to women who need such
schedules to race home to make dinner for their families may have ruffled some
female voters the wrong way.”The
article then quotes Andra Gillespie, a political science professor at Emory University,
who comments, “His discussion of work-life balance appeared condescending to
some because of the reference to women cooking dinner.”That was the sum total of the attention paid
in this article to the substance of Governor Romney’s comment.

Personally,
I thought that sort of reaction by Professor Gillespie was overly sensitive and
prideful.It was also out of touch with
reality.Families need to eat.That is just a reality, no sense denying
it.Eating out on a frequent basis or
relying on take-on meals is a waste of money and typically not good for one’s
health.So, someone in the family has to
cook.And there is a ton of empirical
evidence that even today women disproportionately shoulder the burden of most
caregiving responsibilities—including meal planning and food preparation.To deny that reality because it hurts our
egos is not productive.

Over the
years, my husband and I have traded cooking responsibilities in our
family.I know some families where the
husband does most of the cooking.But
anecdotally, such approaches seem to be rather unusual.I’ve had numerous fellow working moms respond
with stunned awe when they hear my husband cooks and feeds our children on a
regular basis.Apparently this is not
their reality.

Perhaps I
am wrong, but I suspect that most of the women who panned Governor Romney’s comment
about cooking dinner are not parents.A
dear friend of mine and I had a spirited disagreement over the governor’s
comment.Like Professor Gillespie, my
friend thought it was patronizing and it really annoyed her.My response to my friend was, “Welcome to my
world!”This friend of mine is married,
but she and her husband do not have children.

Children
do not raise themselves.There is a lot
of on-going work that has to get done to take care of them.It takes considerable time, effort and
financial resources.In my experience, people
who are not parents do not always seem to realize this.I often hear comments in casual conversation
and in the media that suggest that childrearing is some sort of cute little
hobby.It is not.It is a serious, long-term
responsibility.Unfortunately, I discern
that in the media we frequently do not hear enough from people who actually
bear such responsibilities.They are
probably too busy cooking dinner, checking homework and making sure people are
bathed and in bed at a decent hour.

This point
gets back to the workplace inhospitableness towards caregivers.Such caregivers (who are disproportionately
women) leave the professional world altogether or remain but are relegated to a
disrespected “mommy track” because of the difficulty in juggling paid work and
family responsibilities.But it is a
vicious cycle.Because they leave or are
relegated to a lower caste at work, the perspective of such people are rarely
heard in the media or behind closed doors when employment policies are decided.Until their perspective is heard, I am
pessimistic things will improve.

1 Corinthians 12:14-17

Certainly the body isn’t one part but many.If the foot says,
“I’m not part of the body because I’m not a hand,” does that mean it’s not part
of the body?If the ear says, “I’m not part of the
body because I’m not an eye,” does that mean it’s not part of the body?If the whole body
were an eye, what would happen to the hearing? And if the whole body were an
ear, what would happen to the sense of smell?